Thursday, 19 March 2015

Latest in the long (and tedious) line of naysayer to warn Britain "of
serious consequences for economic and security policy if it leaves the
European Union" is Vidar Helgesen, Norway's minister for Europe.

He has been given a platform by the Observer,
taking the opportunity also to tell us that his country has often found
it difficult to shape economic rules that affected Norway – often cited
by Eurosceptics as a shining example of how a nation can thrive outside
the EU – while not being a member.

This is a sideways dig at the "Norway Model",
but it must say something for this option that the Europhile tendency
that it is so keen to discourage its adoption, taking virtually every
opportunity to spread the message of how bad they think it is.

Not content with the usual frighteners, though, Helgesen adds a
reference to a time of "burning security crisis not seen since the cold
war". Most key meetings, he claims, are now being convened at EU level,
rather than within Nato, and it was vital that the UK was there to shape
decisions.

The man is on his way to talk to the pro-EU campaigning group, British Influence, with a speech entitled: "The European Union: why one who has not joined thinks that WE should not leave".

Largely as a result of its oil resources, Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, with a higher per-capita income than the vast majority of its member states.

As a result, we are told, "British Eurosceptics" often say the Norwegian
experience is evidence of how a country outside the EU, but enjoying
the benefits of the single market through membership of the EEA, can
prosper without having to commit itself to full membership.

This, however, is classic straw-man territory. But then, the only way
the Europhiles can win an argument is to distort it first, beyond all
recognition.

In Flexcit,
we recognise that the Norway Modelis an imperfect instrument,
advocating it only as a halfway house – a ready-made template to ease
our way out of the European Union. This is but stage one of a three-part
process, with the benefits of withdrawal accruing mainly in the third
stage.

Such is the narrowness of his vision, though, that Helgesen complains
EEA membership often creating "frustrations and difficulties", which
means that "Norwegian ministers and officials spent a lot of time –
sometimes without success – trying to find out what was going on in EU
meetings that would affect their country directly".

"We [Norway] are fully integrated into the EU single market as members
of the EEA", he says, "but what we don't have is the right to vote on
those regulations that are incorporated into our law when they are made
by the council of ministers".

But with qualified majority voting applying to the Council of Ministers,
and Britain holding 29 out of the 352 votes, it can cast only eight
percent of the vote. Yet, a qualified majority is 252 votes - 73.9
percent.

In the European Parliament, the situation is little better. There are 73
UK MEPs, and these represent a mere 9.7 percent of the 751 elected
MEPs. Given the party splits, this level of representation is notional.
UK MEPs rarely vote together as a single bloc. Even if they did, they
could never muster the 376 votes needed for a majority.

Thus, the idea that Norway is gravely disadvantaged by not having a vote
is sheer fantasy. Any relationship with the EU – in or out – is going
to be fraught.

It is, therefore, of little consequence that Helgesen reports that, on
occasion, Brussels has sprung surprises that the Norwegians could not
predict. The same kind of frustrations, he says, could well face the UK –
as if they do not already, and continuously so.

Here, what is so fascinating about these Europhiles is how little they
know of the construct they so adore – much less of the way the world
works, and the Norwegian part in it.

Referring to our membership of the Union, he says: "You would not have
all those Brits staffing the commission where the decisions are made",
then adding: "Britain being on the outside would obviously not have that
amount of people on the inside. You would find it more difficult, as a
result, to affect the regulations".

That, of course, is not how regulations are affected, and this is not
even how the game is played – as the Norwegians themselves well know,
with their role in Codex standing as a major example of how regulation is framed.

It takes Anne Tvinnereim, former Norwegian State Secretary – whom we interviewed
when we went to Norway – to present the honest position.
"We do get to influence the position", she told us. "Most of the
politics is done long before it [a new law] gets to the voting stage".

Nevertheless, Helgesen says: "It is up to the British to make the
decision [as to whether they leave the EU], but I would not think that
if the Norwegian model were applied, that this would be ideal". This,
though, is nothing more than a statement of the obvious. There is no
such thing as an "ideal" in practical politics – only sensible
compromises that take us towards a desired goal.

And clearly, such rationality is beyond Peter Wilding, British Influence's
director, to whom Helgesen is coming to talk. "Eurosceptics who peddle
the myth that Norway is the best [model] for a non-EU Britain are
deceiving the British public", Wilding says. "They say leaving leads to
more democracy and security. This is nonsense".

So yet again a Europhile resorts to the straw man argument. Nowhere in Flexcit and nowhere generally do we see it argued that the Norway Model, per se leads either to more democracy or security. That is not the point. It is merely a means to an end.

Before we leave it there, however, we have to observe that the other side of the Norwegian divide is suffering from the same misconceptions.

This we see with Heming Olaussen, former director of the Norwegian "No
Campaign", who – as the recent Bannerman fest - also warns us against
the EEA option (as do most of the other participants).

When, however, these people have the depth of knowledge that we have
acquired, though dint of solid hard work, they might be worth listening
to. As it stands, it is remarkable how so many can stand up to parade
their ignorance, and still believe they have anything to offer.

What tells us more than anything, though – far more than their words –
is the frequency and intensity with which so many parties seek to
condemn the "Norway Model", alongside their determination to ignore Flexcit. This tells us that we are on the right track. It wouldn't scare them so much if we weren't.

I have to say that I'm getting a little tired of the sheer silliness for the Open Europe children, and of their feline dishonesty – to say nothing of the gullibility of the media. And splattered over the Guardian
is an example of media gullibility, with the headline, "EU exit:
'Norway model' would leave UK with 94% of current costs – thinktank",
presented as if it was something new, special or even accurate.

The source is a trivial piece of work, picked over by the drooling City Am,
which seeks to tell us that the Norway model is a bad idea, because:
"94 percent of the cost associated with the most burdensome EU rules
would remain in place but the cost would be even harder to cut, since
Norway has no formal voting powers over EU rules".

The point, of course, is that if these drivellers had actually bothered to read Flexcit
(and were able to understand it), they would see that our exit plan –
adopting the Norway Model as the first part – is economically neutral.
The actual regulatory costs would be 100 percent of those borne under EU
membership, as we remain in the EEA and repatriate the entire EU acquis.

As to the absence of formal voting on the part of Norway, we are seeing Open Europe creep away from their claim
that "Britain would still be subject to EU regulations on employment
and financial services but with no formal ability to shape them", and their alternative, that Britain would have "no formal political influence" over the Single Market rules.

Nevertheless, we see OE continue
to ignore regional and global regulation, and the way EFTA/EEA members
have greater influence over it than EU members. And while its thoroughly
dishonest stance has been fully aired on this blog, it this type of
propaganda is an indication of what we are going to have to deal with in
any referendum campaign.

The current effort includes OE listing the "top hundred"
of supposedly the "most costly EU-derived regulations in force in the
UK", in their attempt to talk up the costs of the "Norway Model". But,
unless OE researchers are truly ignorant, then we really are
dealing with wilful propaganda, malicious in intent, the aim being
nothing else but to deceive.

Dipping into their "top hundred" list illustrates the point. For
instance, we see old favourites such as the Motor Vehicles (EC Type
Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 implementing Directives
2007/34/EC, 2007/35/EC and 2007/37/EC, plus Regulations (EC) No 706/2007
and 715/2007, with the OE claiming that the annual recurring cost of £1.3 billion a year is wholly attributable to the EU.

Yet, as readers on this blog will already know, the directives and regulations are part of the vehicle type-approval package
which implements UNECE regulations – regulations which would remain in
force even if we had completely withdrawn from the EU. Furthermore,
within the EEA, we would have a vote on new regulations, through the
World Forum on the Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, in Geneva.

Then OE have listed the CRD IV package the cost again attributed to the EU. However, we find the European Banking Authority telling us that the package implements the Basel III agreement. Although OE
attributes its recurring £4.6 billion cost to "EU regulation", it is
attributable almost entirely to international "quasi-legislation".

Another item on the OE list is the UK Renewable Energy Strategy
which, although implementing Directive 2009/28/EC, is also mandated by
the Climate Change Act. Both Directive and Act are variously
implementing the Kyoto and subsequent international agreements. To
attribute the £4.7 billion cost to "EU regulation" is wholly misleading –
the polite way of saying "a lie". OE is peddling lies.

Even where we see the genuine application of EU law, as in the
Genetically Modified Food (England) Regulations 2004, and two other
Regulations, to attribute the cost to the EU is also misleading. Outside
the EU, we would almost certainly have identical legislation, with
exactly the same costs.

I am not going to trouble you with further examples from the OE
list, but the point is made that significant costs attributed to the EU
do not stem from EU initiatives. We would carry them whether we were in
or out of the EU, "Norway Model" notwithstanding.

But, if the OE argument is false, and repeatedly so, so too is
much of the propaganda from the "other side". That criticism applies
especially to Ukip, Business for Britain and many others in the
anti-EU movement- all of those which, to a greater or lesser extent
assert that there would be immediate savings in regulatory costs arising
from leaving the EU.

The trouble is that EU regulation, and how much money we may or may not
save from leaving the EU, constitute the type of "biff-bam" arguments
that the media love to report. But the two sides getting bogged down in
such arcane details is precisely the wholesale turn-off for the general
public that we need to avoid. If we are going to make any progress, the
economic issues should be neutralised and "parked", not endlessly chewed
over by a bunch of hyperactive think-tank wonks and ill-briefed
politicians.

What we are seeing, therefore, is incompetent campaigning from both sides – although the need to overcome the status quo
effect imposes greater demands on the "out" campaign. Equal
incompetence means we lose. Either way, though, the anti-EU movement is
being poorly served. And if we can't even trash the OE nonsense, we deserve everything we get.

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

If there is a way to miss a point, Kippers will miss it. According to Kippers, Channel 4's programme
last night was "inaccurate scaremongering propaganda". Of course Ukip
is entitled to complain because Ukip has never ever released campaign
posters implying 27m people are after my job. But what has stuck in the
craw for them is the suggestion that Airbus would shut up shop in the
even of a Ukip government.

It is a little far fetched to suggest Airbus would close its doors
overnight, but its also a lot far-fetched that Ukip would form a
government, so we are talking about a rather large abstract here -
another point lost on Kippers, but is it conceivable Airbus would quit
the UK in the event of a Ukip government? Youbetcha!

Airbus would need to exit the UK in such a hurry if it were
to lose access to the single market. It trades in Euros and it exports
to mainland Europe. It depends on a stable trading environment within
the single market and simply could not function as well without free
movement of people. Engineers travel to and from Toulouse at short
notice on a daily basis.

Moreover, it is not conceivable that a split from the EU would be a
cordial or cooperative effort under Farage. Farage is openly hostile to
the EU, combative and confrontational in every way, as evidence by his
conduct toward EU officials, his fellow MEPs and commissioners. Would
this man be able to secure Brexit without creating animosity and putting
up barriers? Unlikely - and his negotiating position would consequently
be weak from the outset - having already lobbed personal abuse at
senior EU figures. This would make life difficult for Airbus - lot least
because it could be used as a political weapon by the EU.

This is not to say that Brexit would necessarily cause Airbus to
quit the UK - just that it is more than likely if we had a Ukip
government. A planned, cordial and orderly Brexit, retaining Efta/EEA
single market access gives no
company any need to quit the UK - but Ukip have categorically ruled out
an Efta
Brexit solution - and that is as far as their Brexit "policy" goes.
Based on the current Ukip approach to Brexit, I would be advising any
exporter to quit the UK ASAP were there any danger of them winning.
Especially since they rely heavily on skilled immigration from outside
the EU which a Ukip
government would put a quota on.

As it happens, Airbus of all companies are the one
multi-national company who last year stated
they would stay in
the UK post-Brexit. But that's in the
event of a credible and sane party taking us out of the EU. Were it Ukip
in power,
I suspect even Airbus would re-evaluate their commitment to the UK. But
it seems Airbus is now less certain. Here we have "Airbus boss" Robin
Southwell voicing concerns.

At a company event today Tues, Mr Southwell said: “Airbus Group, we
note, would never have achieved its success to date without a working
and effective partnership of countries and companies within Europe,
which only collectively can deliver the scale required to be globally
successful.

“Any other economic model which seeks or offers to change
the dynamic and advantageous characteristics which we presently enjoy -
and believe are optimal to our delivering sustained growth and
employment - would need to specifically address this quite proper
challenge in a detailed and compelling manner.”

That is something Ukip and Farage have not yet done and maintains the
line that it does not need to. It stands naked without a Brexit policy,
thus invites such speculation from Channel 4.

Elsewhere in the Brexit debate, more serious contenders than Ukip, who have
examined Brexit roadmaps acknowledge the need for either a free
trade agreement with the EU or EEA+Efta membership. The most prominent Brexit plan, Flexcit by EUreferendum.com,
advocates the latter, which sees the UK remain a part of the single
market - which then has precisely zero material affect on Airbus. Meanwhile the regulations that affect aircraft production are in fact global regulations which we are still obliged to
comply with in or out of the EU. Such subtleties are beyond Ukip.

In conclusion, it is certainly no foregone conclusion that Airbus would
quit the UK or would necessarily need to, unless somehow Britain were
ruled by a bunch of anti-intellectual wreckers who were openly hostile
to the very idea of the EU - who thought ripping up treaties on the fly
was a way to conduct the serious business of government. That would
be Ukip, thus I see a great deal of plausibility in the Channel 4
scenario, especially with
their current set of mouth-breathing halfwits at the helm. There is a
strong and serious case for leaving the EU, but Ukip isn't making it,
and for those of us who are eurosceptic, Ukip is seriously screwing the
pooch.